Local approach to illegal immigrants
-
a bottom up approach - since the Fed is doing squat[^]
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
a bottom up approach - since the Fed is doing squat[^]
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Too bad the courts will throw it out in no time.
-
Too bad the courts will throw it out in no time.
Rob Graham wrote:
Too bad the courts will throw it out in no time.
time will tell. it will be challenged, but with 68% of the city's voters behind it there's a real message bening sent. DC damn well better wake up.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Too bad the courts will throw it out in no time.
time will tell. it will be challenged, but with 68% of the city's voters behind it there's a real message bening sent. DC damn well better wake up.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
there's a real message bening sent. DC damn well better wake up.
Dream on. Most of the Democrats and a substantial portion of the Republicans (including Bush) are determined to foist an amnesty/"social welfare for illegal aliens" solution on us. The message has been sent over and over. They are not listening.
-
a bottom up approach - since the Fed is doing squat[^]
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
but there are exceptions! :omg: :wtf:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
but there are exceptions! :omg: :wtf:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistI believe the idea behind the exemptions is to avoid legal issues that might arize if an otherwise legal family were denied rental because the family included a minor or other family member who was not a legal resident. That is, they are not so much exemptions as they are clarifications on the application of the law.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
there's a real message bening sent. DC damn well better wake up.
Dream on. Most of the Democrats and a substantial portion of the Republicans (including Bush) are determined to foist an amnesty/"social welfare for illegal aliens" solution on us. The message has been sent over and over. They are not listening.
Rob Graham wrote:
They are not listening.
Maybe this will finally be the issue which they have to listen to.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I believe the idea behind the exemptions is to avoid legal issues that might arize if an otherwise legal family were denied rental because the family included a minor or other family member who was not a legal resident. That is, they are not so much exemptions as they are clarifications on the application of the law.
Lawyers was my first thought ,too :D
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Rob Graham wrote:
They are not listening.
Maybe this will finally be the issue which they have to listen to.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
This runs against your previous support of privacy rights. This law forces businesses and individuals to invade the privacy of customers. Are you for or against privacy?
-
This runs against your previous support of privacy rights. This law forces businesses and individuals to invade the privacy of customers. Are you for or against privacy?
The legality of your U.S. residential status is hardly a matter of personal privacy.
Ian
-
This runs against your previous support of privacy rights. This law forces businesses and individuals to invade the privacy of customers. Are you for or against privacy?
It's no different than requiring merchants to verify the age of someone purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. It's the merchant's responsibility to make a good faith effort to ensure that the purchaser is legally qualified to make the purchase...
-
This runs against your previous support of privacy rights. This law forces businesses and individuals to invade the privacy of customers. Are you for or against privacy?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
This runs against your previous support of privacy rights. This law forces businesses and individuals to invade the privacy of customers. Are you for or against privacy?
That is your spin on what I said. If there is just cause to believe that a business or individual is breaking the law, a warrent is issued, and privacy becomes a moot point.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
a bottom up approach - since the Fed is doing squat[^]
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
I read the article and there are exceptions allowed for children, the elderly etc. so it has leeway. Seems reasonable from what I can see.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
This runs against your previous support of privacy rights. This law forces businesses and individuals to invade the privacy of customers. Are you for or against privacy?
That is your spin on what I said. If there is just cause to believe that a business or individual is breaking the law, a warrent is issued, and privacy becomes a moot point.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
If there is just cause to believe that a business or individual is breaking the law
What is the just cause in this instance? That the renter has dark hair and skin? This sounds like a case of situational ethics. Conservatives are well-known for that. Supposedly pro-life, but only for the unborn, because killing people through war or capital punishment is cool. Against regulation of business unless it's forcing landlords to verify residency status. For privacy unless a person wants to smoke dope or hire a prostitute. Support the bill of rights, but only the 2nd, 9th and 10th, while not giving a crap about the 1st, 4th or 5th. Consistency is not a strong point of rightists.
-
It's no different than requiring merchants to verify the age of someone purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. It's the merchant's responsibility to make a good faith effort to ensure that the purchaser is legally qualified to make the purchase...
Rob Graham wrote:
It's the merchant's responsibility to make a good faith effort to ensure that the purchaser is legally qualified to make the purchase...
And the tax man's responsibility to make sure all income is reported. Oh, wait. Stan doesn't believe in that particular law. He doesn't want anyone violating his right to financial privacy.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If there is just cause to believe that a business or individual is breaking the law
What is the just cause in this instance? That the renter has dark hair and skin? This sounds like a case of situational ethics. Conservatives are well-known for that. Supposedly pro-life, but only for the unborn, because killing people through war or capital punishment is cool. Against regulation of business unless it's forcing landlords to verify residency status. For privacy unless a person wants to smoke dope or hire a prostitute. Support the bill of rights, but only the 2nd, 9th and 10th, while not giving a crap about the 1st, 4th or 5th. Consistency is not a strong point of rightists.
Ed, where in my post to which you are responding did I say anything aside from the government listening to the will of the people? Why does that scare you so much, you sad, delusional, paranoid little man?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Too bad the courts will throw it out in no time.
Nope. There is nothing in the constitution that mentions immigration. Unless you want to consider illegal immigrant to be "Foreign invaders". AND under the tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."The people being the local citizens.
Ron Paul for President of the United States of America
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If there is just cause to believe that a business or individual is breaking the law
What is the just cause in this instance? That the renter has dark hair and skin? This sounds like a case of situational ethics. Conservatives are well-known for that. Supposedly pro-life, but only for the unborn, because killing people through war or capital punishment is cool. Against regulation of business unless it's forcing landlords to verify residency status. For privacy unless a person wants to smoke dope or hire a prostitute. Support the bill of rights, but only the 2nd, 9th and 10th, while not giving a crap about the 1st, 4th or 5th. Consistency is not a strong point of rightists.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Supposedly pro-life, but only for the unborn
that should read: only for the innocent who cannot speak for themselves. as to:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Support the bill of rights, but only the 2nd, 9th and 10th, while not giving a crap about the 1st, 4th or 5th.
a lot of drivel, how about some examples - and you've completely forgotten about the distortion of the 14th, which was meant to clarify the standing of individuals previously known as slaves, not for the creation of anchor babies.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Ed, where in my post to which you are responding did I say anything aside from the government listening to the will of the people? Why does that scare you so much, you sad, delusional, paranoid little man?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why does that scare you so much, you sad, delusional, paranoid little man?
I don't get the scared part at all. "Delusional", you just skip right past all the fact based arguments and jump on delusional without refuting his statements? Oh yeah, I forgot, you can't refute them because they are true. "paranoid little man"... Wasn't it (D)espeir that said when leftists can't support their argument they resort to "name calling". Notice that Ed's argument did not fall apart, yours did and you resorted to name calling. Now I am no rocket scientist but it seems obvious to me that if the two of you represent the average right wing supporter... well nuf said.
"When your argument falls apart...resort to name-calling."
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxWhereas "liberal" is just a moron.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the Soapboxtypical left-wing pseudo-intellectual crackpot
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxYour logic is really really bad.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the SoapboxI'm kind of incoherent today.
Red Stateler aka (D)espeir in the Soapboxled mike
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Supposedly pro-life, but only for the unborn
that should read: only for the innocent who cannot speak for themselves. as to:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Support the bill of rights, but only the 2nd, 9th and 10th, while not giving a crap about the 1st, 4th or 5th.
a lot of drivel, how about some examples - and you've completely forgotten about the distortion of the 14th, which was meant to clarify the standing of individuals previously known as slaves, not for the creation of anchor babies.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
that should read: only for the innocent who cannot speak for themselves.
Good one Mike, because as (D)espeir pointed out about all those women and children dying in Lebanon and Israel during the Hezbollah Israel fighting "there are no innocent people there". And of course rightists views on abortion want to completely ignore the voice of the mother who can speak for herself, you know the mother, without whom the fetus cannot survive, but yeah you guys have a solid stance on that issue.
led mike